It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

5th Sept 2017 Nevada crash

page: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant

It would eventually get out, but they'd want to try to keep it quiet as long as possible. It could damage the relationship of the nation that sold it to us with Russia.

There's some follow up and tracking of airframes for maintenance purposes, but it's almost all in the owning nation's hands after delivery.




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Melbourne_Militia
I heard, thou not confirmed, that it was "Maverick" recreating the infamous "Bird" scene on the production of Top Gun 2, with the Sukhoi Su-27 when something went wrong.....no details have been released because of confidentiality clauses with the filming of the movie......


The Sukhoi 27 in top gun was not a Sukhoi at all. It was a civilian Northrup T-38, owned by Thornton Aircraft.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I have a new theory and I think this solves a few issues.

We know that previous declassified aggressor programs that flew foreign military aircraft were typically under the command of Tactical Air Command (TAC) or what is now Air Combat Command (ACC). These were aimed at pilot training. Whilst the pilot in question would probably be an asset on any assignment, we know he previously flew for Air Force Material Command (AFMC), was a test pilot, and the aircraft that crashed was owned by AFMC. Note that previous foreign material exploitation (FME) programs were run by the predecessor to AFMC, Air Force Systems Command (AFSC). These include programs like Have Donut, which were not necessarily aimed at training but rather, learning as much about the aircraft from a technical standpoint as possible, questions as such: How did it fly? Under which conditions is it most vulnerable to A2A missiles or other sensor? This might involve flying the aircraft in specific tests under a specific flight profile.

As an example, there is a term used with modern avionics that may be particularly relevant. Non Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR). Or in other words, the ability of the avionics (or even the pilot) to identify aircraft if they do not have IFF. This can be done via imaging in various spectrums such as infrared or radar. Testing would probably be best conducted on a fully militarized aircraft that can use its radar, even having the radar removed will affect the aircrafts RCS. The testing could be conducted to ensure that non cooperative targets can be identified from Beyond Visual Range (BVR) ranges. I would also suspect that such work also would involve the US intelligence community and the need to get the foreign aircraft of many different kinds from different nations, far more secret than some foreign aggressor aircraft such as the ex-Ukrainian Su-27's.

This could also explain why a AFMC F-35 was flying near the range previously on that day, although it could be a coincidence. This seems to fit with the AFMC aircraft crashing, and why a test pilot was flying a foreign aircraft. This may be what the program is aimed at doing, not being an aggressor squadron.


Mission data files, which comprise MDLs, are essential to
enable F-35 mission systems to function properly. Block 3F
upgrades to the U.S. Reprogramming Laboratory (USRL) –
where mission data files are developed, tested and validated
for operational use – are late to meet the needs for Block
3F production aircraft and IOT&E. These upgrades to the
Block 3F configuration, including the associated mission
data file generation tools, are necessary to enable the USRL
to begin Block 3F mission data file development. In spite
of the importance of the mission data to both IOT&E and
to combat, the Program Office and Lockheed Martin have
failed to manage, contract, and deliver the necessary USRL
upgrades to the point that fully validated Block 3F MDLs
will not be ready for IOT&E until June 2018, at the earliest.

www.dote.osd.mil...


I wonder how they "validate" mission data files? Note the difference between testing, verification, and validation.
edit on 21/9/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 21/9/17 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
"Do you not think they would do that on the ground, you dont need to involve laws of gravity and aerodynamics to test that. "

The rumors I've heard (so-called) involved a ground radar station that needed to have an attack profile flown against it. And a pilot to execute extreme maneuvers in a foreign aircraft to test specific EW capabilities in that flight envelope.

Again rumors. Zaph is right, we are all hearing a dozen stories but for some reason I'm leaning towards this one. We have guys fly against our own systems all the time. It's why we kept the F-117 around all these years....until now.

Many folks are saying it might not be a Suk afterall but an F-117. And I would not have a hard time believing that too. We just canned the Type 1000 Storage. Whatever relation? Likely not.
edit on 27-9-2017 by aholic because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-9-2017 by aholic because: I refuse to turn my adblocker off



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: aholic
"Do you not think they would do that on the ground, you dont need to involve laws of gravity and aerodynamics to test that. "

The rumors I've heard (so-called) involved a ground radar station that needed to have an attack profile flown against it. And a pilot to execute extreme maneuvers in a foreign aircraft to test specific EW capabilities in that flight envelope.

Again rumors. Zaph is right, we are all hearing a dozen stories but for some reason I'm leaning towards this one. We have guys fly against our own systems all the time. It's why we kept the F-117 around all these years....until now.

Many folks are saying it might not be a Suk afterall but an F-117. And I would not have a hard time believing that too. We just canned the Type 1000 Storage. Whatever relation? Likely not.


Fair enough, I was thinking more indiscriminate EW, I suppose you can only test certain things on static rigs until you need to fly. But.....:-)

If that were the case and the pilot rode it into the deck, either they were performing this thing a low altitude or it fried the ejection sequence too. Nap of the earth speed stealth bombing?

I dont know anything about it and i suppose waiting for the investigation is pointless if it is a secret!



posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Forensick

I was talking about similar situations with someone a couple weeks ago. It doesn't have to fry the ejection system, there doesn't have to be a malfunction in the system or anything. It's not uncommon for pilots to ride an aircraft into the ground or wait too late to eject.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

No certainly not uncommon at all, unfortunately. Even for a brilliant mind and pilot like Col. Doc.

But I, for a particular reason, am leaning towards an account I heard that his plane was targeted via EW during the failure. We'll never know if that was key to the crash or not sadly.



posted on Sep, 28 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: aholic

Regardless of what happened to the aircraft there is very little that would affect the seat itself. It's a fairly bulletproof system. And we just watched a highly experienced test pilot ride an aircraft into the ground over the weekend.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
From what's been pieced together, he was almost certainly in a Sukhoi, probably a -27. Beyond that, don't count on much, if anything being released.
edit on 10/8/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Regarding the SU30 possibility...

How about instead of trying to procure a complete airplane, the US pulled a Radar O' Reilly* and acquired the constituent parts from say, India (they build them too) over a period of several years. Eventually the whole item could be built here then flown quietly and no one would notice any missing planes because, well, there aren't any.

This could be a workaround for those who want a piece of hardware that other people work hard to keep track of.

OR... A cash strapped foreign service could order parts from whoever they get their parts from and essentially act as a go between for the same scenario above.

* For those who aren't familiar with the reference, Radar (a character from the movie/TV series M*A*S*H*) mailed an entire Army Jeep home to his mother in Iowa one part at a time from Korea.

Easier still - We have trillions of dollars that are unaccounted for. One person in a position to do so could easily move files to a less secure storage device and "lose" it, then enjoy a comfortable retirement. China isn't the only nation good at stealing stuff.

Still... the way this has all been reported, it wreaks of something else.




edit on 8-10-2017 by sqd5driver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: sqd5driver

That's a possibility that I thought of. They might have just gotten key parts to test, like engines. It would be better to get the entire airframe, simply because then everything is integrated, and you don't have to try to troubleshoot from manuals, but it's a possibility.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Please forgive me asking a very simple ridiculous questions if it were an Su-27 why the secrecy around any information being released ?



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Because they're reluctant to release any information about our Foreign Exploitation programs. They might have upgraded it, or done something to it that would affect relations with an ally, or something along those lines.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: sqd5driver

Easier still - We have trillions of dollars that are unaccounted for. One person in a position to do so could easily move files to a less secure storage device and "lose" it, then enjoy a comfortable retirement. China isn't the only nation good at stealing stuff.


The unaccounted for money isn't missing. They know what was allocated, and what was sent where for each program. What they don't have, is that money documented outside the program budget system. So when they look at each service budget for the year, there is money "missing".

Then they have to go back to each program, and find all the information they need, sometimes going back years, and input it into the correct location in the system.


Still... the way this has all been reported, it wreaks of something else.


No it doesn't. The Foreign Exploit guys are often kept in as near total secrecy as they can be. My brother-in-law worked in their office on missiles, and I only found out after he retired, because they put it in his retirement pamphlet.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker

Because, despite the fact that "everyone knows" we test foreign military aircraft, it is still considered a classified program. This is largely to protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods, particularly the mechanisms by which the U.S. Defense Department acquires these aircraft and weapon systems.

Sometimes this level of secrecy seems unreasonable. One example would be official U.S. sources and former program personnel still referring to then declassified HAVE DOUGHNUT MiG-21 and HAVE DRILL MiG-17 as being made available by "the host country" rather than naming Israel outright. The stated reason is that, "We need to protect the host country." This despite the fact that the Israeli government years ago openly released information on their involvement in acquisition of these aircraft.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
I see, I was looking at it as if they were keeping hush because they didn't want anyone to find out they had a foreign fighter in their inventory and people would question as to how they acquired it. But say take what you said about upgrades how would that matter .. it's not like the aircraft was being used for a combat role. But the again I see how they would want to keep something hush if they had made for example an SU-27 better through upgrades and would not want an ally or an 'enemy' knowing what they had actually done to it

Sorry my knowledge isn't that great when it comes to things like this I appreciate the answers



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk
Thanks for the reply
that makes sense



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
In relation to other countries acquiring another countries aircraft is there any evidence that any let's say US aircraft being in the hands of say Russia. I know F16s and widely used around the world by many airforces

I vaguely remembering hearing a story years ago where a Russian pilot defected with his MiG 25 Foxbat that story intrigued me i may have to look that up again

Edit: en.m.wikipedia.org...

Soviet pilot Viktor Belenko defected with his MiG 25 to Japan where it was examined by the US and Japan
edit on 8-10-2017 by ThePeaceMaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk

Once you admit you have any foreign aircraft for exploitation, the next question the press will ask is what other foreign aircraft do we have. Might as well deny everything.

They probably assign each foreign airframe a new code name so that you can't FOIA for one code name with all the airframe types. Then again constant Peg had a few MOG types. Maybe a code name for each foreign manufacturer.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Zaphod, you are correct, of course.

I didn't word that very well. I should have put "unaccounted for" in quotations. I understand that it's not "lost", it's just not put out there like most of our expenditures (X amount for bridges or land acquisition, etc...).
edit on 8-10-2017 by sqd5driver because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join